This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

View Poll Results: See OP: Who is responsible for the death of the human shields?

Re: Human shields

I said MY BIBLE in it's different versions. The Catholic Bible is a beast unto it's own with books I have never read.

Sorry but you made a mistake.

Originally Posted by Tucker Case

"inside and out in it's many different translations and versions"

That statement has been proven to be bull****. You don't even know much about the English translations. Hell, you don't even know which religion uses them. For example, the KJV is protestant.

Taking my statement out of context is just a bit dishonest don't you think?

I am not a Protestant either. I am non-denominational. I do know the Bible as is very will in most of it's different renderings. I did not say all. I also said I don't know everything.

Originally Posted by Tucker Case

You also claimed "99.9% of the Bible rendered it this way for a reason. "

Here's a stat, (and unlike yours, mine's real). There are 2.1-2.2 billion Christians in the world. About 50% are Roman Catholic. 1.1 billion or so.

How could 99.9 percent of the bibles be rendered this way when 50% of the people who would read it are of a faith that disagrees with it?

(Not to mention the fact that most of them aren't rendered in English)

Already covered your wrong accusation. Thanks for the correction.

Originally Posted by Tucker Case

It's a direct translation from the original texts, which are mostly in the possession of the Catholic church.

No. You would logically assume that, but it is wrong.

"Unfortunately, none of these original manuscripts exist today. Well over 3000 years have passed since Moses first penned the book of Genesis. None of his own writing has survived, but copies have been made down through the centuries. The scribes who made these copies were extremely careful as they did their work. We know this because there are over 5000 complete or partial copies of the originals, actually copies of the copies. Yet these thousands of copies (which predate the printing press) agree with each other to an amazing extent. There is no major variation in any of them. No other book from ancient times has this much underlying documentary support. So we are sure we have the original text as it came from the mind of God." - Where Is The Original Bible?

Originally Posted by Tucker Case

Which Church would you bet has the most original, untranslated biblical texts in the world?

None actually.

And of the 5000 surviving copies the Vatican, does not have a majority.

Originally Posted by Tucker Case

But, yes, because you disagree and can make **** up while not presenting a single fact, my argument is nonexistent.

Not really. You are trying to say a corrected and accurate translation is not to try and say not all religions agree?

Hell of an argument.

Last edited by Black Dog; 03-14-10 at 04:45 PM.

Originally Posted by Absentglare

You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

Re: Human shields

Taking my statement out of context is just a bit dishonest don't you think?

You want to speak of dishonesty?!?!?!?!

Let's look at the context:

I said:

Originally Posted by Tucker Case

See how that works? The simple fact is you can't say for certain who is getting it wrong, you can only say what you believe

Only God knows for sure what is or is not a sin.

Obviously, I am referring to all possible translations with this.

You responded with:

Originally Posted by Blackdog

Please Tucker, do not try and preach my own Bible to me. I know it inside and out in it's many different translations and versions. As I have shown you are incorrect, and it does not work like that in this case.

It is not a question of interpretation, it is an admitted mistranslation.

Which is a dishonest attempt to paint yourself as an expert on the subject.

Either you were referring to all translations, thus making the post to which I am currently responding a flat-out lie, or you were only referring to the translations which you agree with which makes the statement itself a clearly dishonest portrayal of yourself as an expert AND it proves my statement correct.

So before you go accusing people of taking things out of context, you really should pull the plank out of your own eye.

Re: Human shields

Originally Posted by Blackdog

No. You would logically assume that, but it is wrong.

"Unfortunately, none of these original manuscripts exist today. Well over 3000 years have passed since Moses first penned the book of Genesis. None of his own writing has survived, but copies have been made down through the centuries. The scribes who made these copies were extremely careful as they did their work. We know this because there are over 5000 complete or partial copies of the originals, actually copies of the copies. Yet these thousands of copies (which predate the printing press) agree with each other to an amazing extent. There is no major variation in any of them. No other book from ancient times has this much underlying documentary support. So we are sure we have the original text as it came from the mind of God." - Where Is The Original Bible?

Fair enough. What I should have said was that the Vatican has the largest single collection of what is considered to be the texts in their original languages. I should have worded it better, though, as it looks as though I'm saying they have the majority of the texts.

I don't know if the Vatican has the majority of the texts, but I do know that no other group's collection comes remotely close to comparing to the Vatican's in size and general quality.

But you are correct in pointing out the flaws in that statement. I acknowledge the mistake.

And of the 5000 surviving copies the Vatican, does not have a majority.

I worded this poorly, as well, it seems. I asked which "Church has the most" in order to mean which church has the largest collection (in comparison to other churches, or in general for that matter).

I know that the Vatican has 800 Hebrew manuscripts. Approximately 5600 manuscripts exist in varied states. That's about 1/7th of the total number the manuscripts into a single collection. Making the Vatican the single group that has the most of these copies, even though they themselves do not have the majority of the copies.

To explain this more adequately, imagine you have five hundred people.

499 people all have 1 apple each, but 1 person has 300 apples. You could say that this person has the most apples.

But I can see how the confusion on what was meant by this was exacerbated by my error above, so I apologize for this error as well.

The point remains though. No other group has direct access to as many original-language texts as the Vatican.

Re: Human shields

Which is a dishonest attempt to paint yourself as an expert on the subject.

Either you were referring to all translations, thus making the post to which I am currently responding a flat-out lie, or you were only referring to the translations which you agree with which makes the statement itself a clearly dishonest portrayal of yourself as an expert AND it proves my statement correct.

So before you go accusing people of taking things out of context, you really should pull the plank out of your own eye.

Not true at all. I stated I am an expert and I am. This does not mean I know everything about all Bibles in existence. I also stated for a fact I am no Catholic, so how would I be an expert on it? I said this before hand I believe.

This is pretty irrelevant anyway. It does not change the FACT, the translation they follow is wrong by all standards in biblical history but their own. Go figure?

Originally Posted by Absentglare

You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

Re: Human shields

The side using them is responsible for it. Side A cannot be allowed to think human shields will deter the consequences of their actions.

How is he wrong? There is no right or wrong answer to begin with so you are not correct yourself.

Everybody has a different interpretation on moral issues and that is the answer Ethereal found suitable for his interpretation.

It falls down to the judges/political elite in the end, though, and how they interpret it, not us.

"If religious instruction were not allowed until the child had attained the age of reason, we would be living in quite a different world" - Christopher Hitchens> Good to be back, but I'm only visiting for a few weeks. <

Re: Human shields

Originally Posted by Tucker Case

I actually don't disagree with anything you said at all, Goshin.

As far as the Hebrew goes, I would say that there is an ongoing debate between Hebrew scholars on the matter. It's not a simple "murder" vs. "killing" debate, as the meanings of these English words do not fully encapsulate the meaning of the Hebrew word (according to these scholars). The full meaning is indeed explained through the rest of the bible.

But here's where Catholics and protestants differ.

The main reason the Catholics prefer "kill" to "murder" is because the Bible itself dictates which types of actions are self-defense etc, and are thus justifiable killings and non-sins, not the laws of the land one is in. Murder, in English, simply means illegal killing, and is open to far more subjective interpretation than "killing" is.

This is, because as you point out, the Bible specifically states the exact conditions for justifiable killing that doesn't constitute a sin.

The Catholic church believes that using "murder" creates more ambiguity for things that superficially resemble the situations described in the bible, but are not explicitly stated.

Also, I don't think the OT is pacifistic. Quite the opposite in fact. However, I do think the NT is far more pacifistic than it is violent, but still allows for violence in certain situations.

However, using the context of the bible, Old and New, most killing is to be avoided at all costs. And even justifiable killing is to be avoided if at all possible. And revenge killing is never justified, for forgiveness is the ultimate virtue. Which is why the Catholic church opposes the death penalty. Only God can pass judgment and take revenge. We have been told to forgive and forgo revenge.

Essentially, the Catholics feel that only God can justify killing, not the legal system of a nation. God has left examples of what are justifiable killings, and Jesus expanded upon that in the New testament by spending quite a bit of time focusing on forgiveness.

That's there prerogative. According to strict adherence to Catholicism, the Iraqi war was a sinful war because it was not done for defense, and all efforts at peace had not been exhausted.

Thus if someone shoots through a "meat shield", as BD puts it, to get the "bad guy", they are in fact committing a sin, and full responsibility lays on them for the innocent death, even if they shot in self-defense, because their "sinful" ways put them in danger in the first place.

Many sects of Protestantism clearly have a less stringent view on the matter.

Which side is right?

Only God knows for sure, and that's the truth of it.

Ok, I see the point you're making, and it is a pretty good one.

It is far-fetched but not impossible that a law could be passed, somewhere, tomorrow making it lawful for any person to kill any left-handed redhead with freckles that they happen across.

That would make it not-murder, because it would not be illegal. That would NOT make it right in the sight of God.

Nor do I disagree with you that it is Biblically preferable to avoid killing in most circumstances, if it is feasible to do so. While it would be impractical to attempt to make peace with someone who was sending bullets whizzing by my head at that particular moment in time, alternately if I "had the drop on someone" I would certainly give them a chance to cease their threatening activity and surrender, as preferable to killing them.

However I think you're mistaken about the capital punishment issue. Yes the Catholics are generally opposed to it, but I disagree that there is a solid Biblical basis for that opposition.

Fiddling While Rome Burns
ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
"I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."